Skip to main content

Mere confession cannot be basis for filing chargesheet: Madras HC

Holding that mere confession in the absence of evidence cannot be the basis for filing chargesheet, Madras High Court has quashed a murder case against a man, charged with killing his wife, and six others, accused of abetting it.


The accused need not be made to go through the rigour of trial, as the entire case had been built on mere confessions made by key suspects to police, Justice R S Ramanathan said allowing a petition by the accused seeking quashing of the case in a magistrate court.

"Charge sheet cannot be filed against the accused solely on the basis of confession, which does not lead to recovery (of evidence). In this case, except the confession, there is no recovery. Therefore, the confession cannot be the basis for conviction, even accepting it as true," the Judge ruled.

Quoting Supreme Court verdicts, he said "When the confession does not lead to recovery, the confession is inadmissible in law, and the chargesheet based on such confession has no legal basis, and is liable to be quashed."

According to police, Natarajan had developed intimacy with another woman, and murdered his wife Vijayalakshmi, in order to marry his paramour.

Besides Natarajan, police had arraigned his parents, sister, brother-in-law and paternal uncle as accused, apparently for having tried to tamper with evidence by destroying mobile phone and personal belongings of the victim.

Chargesheet for murder and abetment was filed against the accused before the judicial magistrate court in Paramathi in Namakkal District.

Counsel for the accused submitted that except the confessions of Natarajan and his mother, no other incriminating statements or evidence had been obtained by police, and other evidence like mobile phone too had not been recovered by police.

Article referred: http://zeenews.india.com/news/india/mere-confession-cannot-be-basis-for-filing-chargesheet-madras-hc_1565131.html

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more